And such stance has pervaded, unfortunately, some of the country’s lawmakers. For this reason, the fate of the Reproductive Health Bill, hangs in a balance.

And unfortunately, the anti-RH force is moving heaven and earth just so that this bill will not be passed.

But what is it in the Reproductive Health Bill that has enraged the Catholic clergy?

I have actually written about this particular subject several years ago (see “What the RCC hates in the RH act“). But, since this bill has gone some revisions, we shall try to review it again, during the course of which I’ll try to dismantle the misinformation being propagated by the so-called “pro-lifers” (who have more than successfully hijacked the term just so to gain unfair advantage over their opponents).

The elements of reproductive health care that are being espoused by the bill are as follows:

family planning information and services;
maternal, infant and child health and nutrition, including breastfeeding;
proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications;
adolescent and youth reproductive health;
prevention and management of reproductive tract infections (RTIs), HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections elimination of violence against women;
education and counseling on sexuality and reproductive health;
treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions and disorders;
male responsibility and participation in reproductive health;
prevention and treatment of infertility and sexual dysfunction;
reproductive health education for the adolescents
mental health aspect of reproductive health care.

But for this post, I shall be limiting myself in those concepts that has lighted the fire under our beloved clergy’s butts.

1) Family planning information and services

Beloved Catholic clergy did not want taxpayers’ money to fund public health clinics giving out pamphlets and lectures regarding modern artificial contraceptives. Neither does it want it to be giving away free contraceptives. The clergy wanted ONLY natural methods of family planning to be endorsed and taught by these clinics. The clergy has successfully convinced some of its members to disagree with the bill by cleverly insinuating that their taxes go to activities deemed immoral by their church (not considering that NOT everybody in this country belong to their church). And so the statements, “I will not allow the government to use my taxes to pay for your condom” and “let them buy their own condoms”. Well, the idea is to help out the impoverished who cannot afford to buy contraceptives. For those who do not know, contraceptives are considered essential medicines (see section 18, WHO list of essential medicines March 2010 update). The WHO list of essential medicines is a list of minimum medicines needs for a basic health care system. If the clergy wanted to prevent contraceptives from being able in a basic health care unit, then they are, basically, preventing the government from addressing basic health care needs.

The clergy is also frowning upon the use of IUDs and tubal ligation as contraceptive measures. What most of them are blind to is the provision in the bill that these procedures will not be FORCED upon women, but rather, it would be made available to those who may wish to have these procedures.

SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning
All accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on an optional basis. For poor patients, such services shall be fully covered by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) and/or government financial assistance on a no balance billing.
After the use of any PhilHealth benefit involving childbirth and all other pregnancy-related services, if the beneficiary wishes to space or prevent her next pregnancy, PhilHealth shall pay for the full cost of family planning.

SEC. 11. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies
The DOH shall spearhead the efficient procurement, distribution to LGUs and usage-monitoring of family planning supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate LGUs to plan and implement this procurement and distribution program. The supply and budget allotment shall be based on, among others, the current levels and projections of the following:
(a) number of women of reproductive age and couples who want to space or limit their children;
(b) contraceptive prevalence rate, by type of method used; and
(c) cost of family planning supplies.

SEC. 24. Right to Reproductive Health Care Information
The government shall guarantee the right of any person to provide or receive non-fraudulent information about the availability of reproductive health care services, including family planning, and prenatal care.
The DOH and the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) shall initiate and sustain a heightened nationwide multi-media campaign to raise the level of public awareness of the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights including family planning and population and development.

2) Proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications

As early as now, I’m going to say there is nothing (I repeat, NOTHING) in the reproductive health bill that is espousing abortion (abortion being “expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable”, according to an online medical dictionary). The bill, rather, wants to strengthen postabortion care. Now, some will say this is indirectly encouraging women to have abortion. But I’m going to stop you right there. Every woman who has had an abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, whether the abortion hurts you as a believer or not, has a right to obtain good postabortion care.

I remember how it was in the different hospitals I have rotated before…girl coming to the hospital complaining of vaginal bleeding and by history, it was evident that she had induced abortion. Health care providers, then, would be rough and tough on her, just so she’d remember the pain and thus, “remember the lesson”. And some even threatened to be denied anesthesia during curettage, just so they’d break down and cry, the health care provider thinking she’d someday learn to keep herself from getting pregnant again, having more than 5 children or so at the tender age of 20. I remember crying at the time I assisted in the vaginal delivery of a 12-year old girl, a pregnancy that was a product of rape of her father. I remember her as a pained girl, who was so restless on the delivery table, not knowing what to do and too much in pain even to think, as the ob-gyne resident shouted down on her to keep her legs apart. “Ayoko na po! Ayoko na po!” were the words she had ceaselessly shouted until she was able to deliver her baby. I imagined it must be the same set of words that she have shouted back to her father while she was being raped.

No, I’m not saying that this girl should have outright abortion because of rape. But if reproductive health assistance are in place, she could have had proper prenatal care and a planned cesarean section would have been done, as her body frame is so small, she might be better off with a C-section rather than risking a vaginal delivery. However, she did not have prenatal care and the only consultation with a health professional that she had was when she was already in active labor. Or she could have had emergency contraception hours after the attack on her.

For you Anti-RH doctors out there, I don’t understand why you still can’t agree to pass the RH bill, with all that you’ve seen since medical school and clerkship. I bet almost everyone of you has rotated in government hospitals. You have seen the numerous poor pregnant women who have come in and out of these hospitals. You have heard their stories, of how they wanted only few children, but were stuck with 10 or more because they cannot refuse a husband asking for sex. You must have heard how most of these women would say they cannot complete their prenatal care because they’d rather spend on food and electricity than on transportation to hospital and medicines. You have seen how some of the health providers in these government hospitals have been rough and tough on these women, just so that they remember the pain and hardship enough to make them think twice before going into another pregnancy. You have seen the scope of how access to reproductive health medicines and procedures are sorely lacking in this country. How can you not agree with the passage of the bill? Because of your alma mater? Because of your religious convictions? This is not an issue of religion; this is a secular issue. Let these women have their choice!

3) Reproductive health education for the adolescents
The clergy keeps on asking, “do you want your children as young as 5 years old to learn about sex?” My answer to this is YES. Whether parents would be honest to themselves or not, one cannot deny the curiosity of a growing child. Yes, even at the young age of 5, kids do already have some questions related to gender and sex. As the kids grow older, the questions grow more mature and complicated. And it is the responsibility of parents to address these questions. But not every parent can be comfortable discussing sex with their children. Come on, be honest with yourselves. Have you ever discussed sex at any length with your mother/father? The all-too-common scenario at home is this: parent and youngster watching a movie on TV, then a kissing scene comes up. Father/mother brings up one hand to cover youngster’s eyes until the scene ended. “Don’t look, you’re too young for this!” And the youngster is either left bewildered at why he shouldn’t see those scenes or he already knows what those scenes are because he already saw movie at a friend’s house. Most Filipino parents would be just content at “screening out” the topic of sex without ever venturing into trying to give the appropriate knowledge to their kids. And unfortunately, these kids would learn about sex and reproduction through friends only. Talk about the blind leading the blind. And it is at this point that the whole barrage of misinformation and myths start and sometimes will culminate into teen pregnancy or other complications regarding relationship with another person.

And here comes the clergy telling us that only the parents should teach their kids about sex.

In the amended reproductive health bill:

SEC. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education
Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal educational system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life skills and other approaches…

…Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.

I’m not sure where the clergy got the idea that the kids will be forced to attend sex education classes. It is rather clear that the parents have the option to let their children attend these classes. However, in my opinion, children as young as those in the 5th grade should have these classes already. Fifth graders are usually in the age of 11-12 years old and this age is the start of puberty. With many changes in their bodies, these children should be enlightened and armed with knowledge they need to understand these changes.

There is still plenty left to be discussed regarding the reproductive health bill, now that the clergy and their loyal followers are so hell-bent on obstructing the passage of this bill into law. This has also brought out the worst in some people, even if they think they mean well and are only fighting for what they think is right. However, what we must remember that reproductive health bill shouldn’t even be an issue anymore. Every country needs a good reproductive health care available to its citizens. We have our own personal beliefs regarding it, whether it be religious or not. But reproductive health is a secular issue and citizens must decide on this with the objective that the laws to be passed should be beneficial and appropriate to EVERYONE in the country.

“Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal educational system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School”

“Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools, out of school youth, and enrollees in the Alternative Learning System (ALS)…”

“Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects,,,;”

“…should be amended by providing a final paragraph which shall read: “Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend cl***** pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.”

—————————————————————————————————————–

THIS IS A VERY LONG TIME TO STUDY SEX AND SEX RELATED MATTERS. Do we need to give our children a doctorate degree on sexuality education?

We must be very wary of this bill. The rh bill’s avowed goal is to change society’s values – beliefs and behavior; to make contraception acceptable, beginning with our children. And by means of mandatory sex education and other manipulative techniques, THE RH BILL AIMS TO INDOCTRINATE CHILDREN with or without their consent or their parents’.

Even with the opt-out amendment. THE RH BILL STILL MANDATES that “Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education SHALL BE INTEGRATED IN ALL RELEVANT SUBJECTS…’

Integrating sex education into many subjects precludes the practicality of an opt-out. Just putting it into text books or other study material to be readily seen and perused by children makes it mandatory sex education by default, which already defeats the purpose of opting out. And how many parents will even be aware of these lessons?

THIS OPT OUT IS DECEPTIVE. “In Psychology and training, if you are promoting an idea, and you use mandatory education to propagate it, in layman terms, we call it BRAINWASHING. Brainwashing is the application of techniques that tend to persuade or coerce; to implant ideas into the subjects. To affect a persons thought patterns and subsequent behavior (whether you realize it or not). “

This is nothing but enforced education similarly used in training and conditioning animals.

The best thing to do is to implement opt in rather than opt out, wherein those who want to study these lessons may opt in; with separate instruction materials and subjects. But the bill should be amended for this.

Information is good, education is good. BUT BRAINWASHING IS NOT GOOD. It negates free will. It is unethical, and it violates our civil rights.

Why do you typify the oppositors of the bill as 'Catholic clergy' ?only? Plain secular arguments are also being used by the Catholics against the bill. Even atheists do so. In fact the clergy as you call it, shares most of the objections of this particular atheist. It is disingenious to portray opposition as Catholic bias.http://fvdb.wordpress.com/no-to-rh-bill/

I think the difference lies in the main principles being used by the secular side and the catholic side. The secular side, I think, base their opinions on Ayn Rand's philosophies on capitalism and individualism (the article you pointed to, I think, tries to twist the true meaning of Rand's philosophy but this is another topic) and are more economic in nature. The catholic side merely base their opinions on the teachings of their church. I invoke the anti-rh side as primarily being catholic clergy because they are the loudest and the more aggressive among those who protest against the passage of this bill.

The catholic side merely base their opinions on the teachings of their church

There is some basis but I think this is an unfair generalization. Have you watched the HARAPAN debate?Or the grand debate on Channel 7. Were those on the anti-side using "mere opinions" based on the teachings of the Church?

The catholic side merely base their opinions on the teachings of their church

One of the main objections of the catholic side is the issue of abortifacients. This is grounded on the fact that life starts at fertilization and that artificial contraceptives inhibit implantation. This is not just an opinion (based on teaching) but is actually based on science. On the other hand the pro-RH legislators are on record stating that life starts at implantation. Which side represents correct science based on modern embryology?

Yes, I saw that debate. For one, that lady UP professor (with the eye twitch, which I hope wasn't a result of what she was dishing out) did a great disservice to both her educational affiliation (she was even dressed down by her co-professor) and the anti-group. Admittedly, she did cite some scientific studies in support of her arguments. But, let's see if these studies make real sense:
1) she cited that some oral contraceptives (not all contraceptives, as what some pro-lifers and the clergy say) have been found to have some traces of carcinogens. But, in case you haven't heard, these negligible levels have been declared by the WHO as being safe. If we go by your side's arguments, as that professor kept on harping, then we might as well ban all x-ray machines, cell phones, food (grilled and processed foods) and medical preparations as all of them are health hazards or have side effects (the reason why FDAs have toxicity levels to determine if products are safe for human consumption/use). On a practical note, have you ever heard of somebody actually dying from cancer after using pills, IUD or injectibles?
2) another scientific study she kept on harping on was that related to failure rates of contraceptives. But, let me ask you and all other oppositors this: what happens if a condom fails and sperm do pass through (although I still haven't heard of a woman ever getting pregnant after her partner used a condom properly)? Wouldn't it result to a pregnancy? So, what was that professor yapping about?
3) contraceptives, unless you disagree with its general definition, prevents fertifilization, thus there is nothing to kill or abort. This is different from a contragestive which prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e. post-coital contraceptive). Now, to use this particular fact (contragestives) to oppose ALL contraceptives in general is illogical, wouldn't you say so?

Scientific studies of dubious origins or inconclusive conclusions have been misused to justify almost anything. Take the case of eggs. How many times have studies shown that eating too much eggs is bad, only to be countered by studies saying it is okay, and so on and so forth. The general guide, if you ask me, should be what the WHO, FDA and similar bodies say about the efficacy and safety of a product.

There is a sound basis in what the UP Professor says, and it is NOT an opinion – that is my main point. Again, the generalization made by the author is false. I have not heard the RH bill sponsors categorically deny with absolute certainty that artificial contraceptives (hormonal based, NOT CONDOMS) have abortifacient properties. Inhibiting implantation – just to be very CLEAR. It is not any wonder why they insist that life starts at implantation – THIS claim of the RH bill legislators is based on opinion, not science.

Again, the difference lies in how these opinions are made, whether with a religious bias or a scientific basis. We don' t form opinions out of the blue. Everything has a basis. For those who continue to debate this issue using logic and science, even if anti-RH, I would respect that. But if anyone continues to argue the issue using biblical passages and sermons from the pulpit, I will not listen.

As for your contention regarding hormonal based contraceptives, it can have an abortifacient effect, depending on how a person uses it. That's why there has to be a proper way of using it so it could be PREVENTIVE. A woman doesn't take OCP if she is pregnant because, of course, it will terminate a pregnancy. A nonpregnant woman takes OCP so to prevent a pregnancy. I hope you understood that.

Exactly! only prolife groups claim abortifacients to push their case. for proRH there is no abortion if there is no conception. is a zygote alive? yes. is it human? no. it is just a bunch of cells no more human than sperm.

Thus brings us the satire of: every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted god gets quite irate.

a complex cell. duh. like almost every other cell in the human body.it is alive; like an egg or a sperm is alive, it has the potential to be a human, but still not human. please do remember not everyone follows the vatican's version of biology. where every sperm is sacred.

did you even bother reading the article? guess not. a typical characteristic of anti-rh i'm-right-your-wrong syndrome. how dare we use science and logic..

antiRH are so concerned about the unborn. do they even give a crap about those who already are? given the way things are now… apparently not.

Perhaps, you thought he called you a nutjob because your arguments for opposing the bill, like all of you anti-RH oppositors, have all been centered on two things only: some oral contraceptives are abortifacients and when life begins, whether at fertilization or implantation! It's exasperating to argue with someone who already has a mindset on something, even if he's been told to look at the forest and not just a couple of trees! It seems you came to this blog, not with an open mind, but to argue incessantly!

hey you wanted someone with authority regarding where does life begin? i gave it. since you didnt bother reading it. indicates you already have a mindset of your own. so no point trying convincing you.

in a nutshell, you asked for something, i gave it scientifically, logically from a leader of biology. you ignored it. therefore i can conclude you are a fundamentalist nutjob.

This is what typically happens when science is used to explain things to people like you:
Biologist: afeter coitus; a human is created by the combination of a sperm and egg and germination of….
Fundie: oh no science! my faith! No! *covers ears* LALALAALLALALA *later* I'm right and you are wrong.

What I'm concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don't want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being.

Lewis Wolpert – Emeritus Professor of Biology as applied to Medicine in the Department of Anatomy and developmental biology at University College London

Yes mam Prudence I understand and agree on the intentions of a non-pregnant woman to prevent a pregnancy. The thing however that the RH legislators totally ignore is that NO OCP claims 100% effectiveness. There is always a chance of breakthrough ovulation. This is where the secondary effects on the fallopian tubes and endometrium kicks in, and implantation is inhibited. Apparently, the pro-RH considers this an acceptable risk. The anti-RH don't, because another life is at stake, and according to the constitution as well, the unborn must be protected from the moment of conception. Again, the pro-RH THINKS conception means implantation. That is their opinion and it does not square with science nor the Constitution. I hope you understand that too. Note I didn't cite any biblical passages at all.

@WillyJ: Then wouldn't you agree that the issue here is not the RH Bill per se but the classification of certain OCPs as abortifacient? Even without the RH Bill, these pills (and IUDs) are already available, meaning they have not (or not yet) been classified by the FDA as abortifacient. And if they someday they would be classified by the FDA as abortifacient, they would still not be made available even if the RH Bill gets passed. So it is really fallacious to equate the RH Bill with abortion.

I am of the understanding that the core of the RH bill is all about providing public funds to provide "access" for the "full range" of artificial contraceptives, and that includes abortifacients. Yes I agree that certain abortifacients are openly sold in the market, but this does not mean that the government agencies (FDA for one) are on top of their jobs. Open practice does not equate to accepted legality, as we are all too painfully aware in our country. Besides, please note that there is a repeal clause (Section 33) in the RH bill which effectively dictates the parameters for regulatory agencies, on top of serving as automatic amendments to all prior statutory regulations. Since the premise of the authors is that life begins at implantation, it is straightforward to conclude that the floodgates will be opened to all sorts of contraceptives which may be fatal to the zygote (prior to implantation). My hunches are somehow confirmed by another commenter in this thread who said that a zygote is "not human".

As to the conception/fertilization issue, thanks for the link. As a response I point you the the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission:

“it is when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life. Just to repeat: first, there is obviously life because it starts to nourish itself, it starts to grow as any living being, and it is human because at the moment of fertilization, the chromosomes that combined in the fertilized ovum are the chromosomes that are uniquely found in human beings and are not found in any other living being”

(Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, p. 668).

"The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization"

(Record of the Constitutional Commission 799, cited in Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed., p. 78)

[Yes I agree that certain abortifacients are openly sold in the market, but this does not mean that the government agencies (FDA for one) are on top of their jobs.]

Then the pro-life should focus their efforts towards lobbying for the classification of OCPs and IUDs as abortifacient instead of stopping the passage of the RH Bill. If these OCPs and IUDs are indeed abortifacient, then "legalized" abortion is already happening right now even without the RH Bill – and such abortions will continue even if the RH Bill doesn't get passed. And if the pro-life succeed in having these OCPs and IUDs classified as abortifacient, then there is no need to stop the RH Bill in order to stop abortion.

[Besides, please note that there is a repeal clause (Section 33) in the RH bill which effectively dictates the parameters for regulatory agencies, on top of serving as automatic amendments to all prior statutory regulations.]

The repealing clause states that "All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." Now can you point out the provisions of the Act that identify which contraceptives are not abortifacient? If there isn't any, then the repealing clause cannot repeal any issuances of the FDA that identify certain drugs or devices as abortifacients.

[Since the premise of the authors is that life begins at implantation]

Could you please site a reference to this?

[it is straightforward to conclude that the floodgates will be opened to all sorts of contraceptives which may be fatal to the zygote]

If the FDA classifies anything that prevents implantation as abortifacient, this concern will be addressed. What I am trying to stress is that the pro-life are barking up the wrong tree – at the expense of the poor families who would benefit from the other provisions of the RH Bill that have nothing to do with the prevention of implantation.

[As to the conception/fertilization issue, thanks for the link. As a response I point you the the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission:]

Interesting! May I suggest that you repost that part of your comment to the article I linked to give the author a chance to respond. That would make a very interesting discussion. Thanks. 🙂

[Then the pro-life should focus their efforts towards lobbying for the classification of OCPs and IUDs as abortifacient instead of stopping the passage of the RH Bill.]

The pro-life group may have indeed been deficient in the effort to lobby for the proper classification of abortifacients. One such successful effort though materialized with the Postinor ban back in 2001. To put this issue on the proper perspective, would a significant number of the Rh Bill advocates join in this endeavor? If NOT, then why not? Let us make our position on this particular issue clear.

[Now can you point out the provisions of the Act that identify which contraceptives are not abortifacient? ]

Precisely there isn't any. Can we challenge the authors to prove why they said on record that life starts at implantation and not fertilization? Anyone STILL WONDERING why they made such a stand?

[Could you please site a reference to this? (on the premise of the RH bill authors is that life begins at implantation)]

“The issue on whether life begins upon fertilization or at the onset of conception has long been resolved by the 1987 Constitution and reputable medical authorities worldwide in favor of conception or when the fertilized ovum implants in the uterus,” Lagman said in a statement Friday.

Earlier, the PMA through its president Dr. Oscar Tinio bared the stand of the organization that the “beginning of life” occurred at the moment of fertilization, a view shared by the Catholic Churchhttp://yhep.yolasite.com/index/rh-bill-4244-on-wh…

[To put this issue [classification of OCPs and IUDs as abortifacient] on the proper perspective, would a significant number of the Rh Bill advocates join in this endeavor? If NOT, then why not? Let us make our position on this particular issue clear….Can we challenge the authors to prove why they said on record that life starts at implantation and not fertilization? Anyone STILL WONDERING why they made such a stand? ]

Maybe it's because the assertion that conception = fertilization is still debatable. In fact, the complete paragraph of your quote from Fr. Bernas reads:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.”

oh yes of course, thanks. "it is NECESSARY to take the safer approach". Debatable? The value of life is debatable? Even deer hunters understand the principle. When there is something moving in the bushes which seems like a deer but might be a person, it is necessary not to shoot. That's what Fr Bernas says. Don't shoot. Apparently, the pro-Rh legislators won't make for good deer hunters. Especially considering that there are OTHER MEANS AVAILABLE. And those other means do not gamble with life.

Other means available? Like the NFP? Well, nobody is preventing you, or anybody else for that matter, from using a method prescribed by the church which have been more ineffective (due to lack of knowledge) than the contraceptives you people are so horrified about!

Speaking only for myself and not for the other RH Bill advocates, I believe that there is no debate that human life is already present at fertilization (note that I did not say that human life 'begins' at fertilization because I believe that life begins sooner than that – at the production of sperm and egg cells or even earlier). But what I think is debatable is when the 'protection' of human life begins. The constitution mandates protection from 'conception', but it does not define exactly when conception takes place.

And when Fr. Bernas said that the provision "reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach,” that is his opinion and not the consensus of the constitutional commission.

Commissioner Suarez asked Commissioner Bernas if the fertilized ovum was going to be elevated to the category of a person as to enjoy a constitutional right.

To this, Father Bernas replied:

“My own thinking would be that it is not a person yet. That is my own thinking, so that perhaps this whole sentence must be modified to express it in such a way that it is not an assertion that this begins to become a person from the very first moment or nine months before birth. As I said, I am in search of a proper way of expressing this. Perhaps you should say, “protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum.” (17 July 1986 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, VOL.1, p.690)

LINO BROCKA: "I do not think that it should be implemented, for the simple reason that medically, there is no clear consensus that the fertilized ovum is considered human life. It may be a living thing and, for that matter so is a tadpole. But there is no constitution in the world that gives right to life to tadpoles." (17 July 1986 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, VOL. 1p. 692)

REV.RIGOS: "But our religious authorities sharply differ in their opinions as to when human life can definitely be regarded to have commenced. If we constitutionalize the beginning of human life at a stage we call fertilized ovum, then we are putting a note of finality to the whole debate." (17 July 1986 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, VOL. 1p. 693)

Ms. Aquino: "…even this Commission cannot settle the question of whether a fertilized egg has the right to life or not. Those experts in the field of medicine and theology cannot settle this question. It is bad enough for us to preempt this controversial issue by constitutionalizing the ovum; it would be tragic for us to provide for ambiguities, which may even disturb settled jurisprudence." (17 July 1986 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, VOL. 1p. 695)

Fr Bernas may have expressed opinions on the matter, but we must remember that he is also a noted lawyer-constitutionalist, was a respected member of the commission, and whatever he says on the matter deserves attention more than others who have less credentials to speak on the matter.

I suppose it is better to look into what Dr Bernie Villegas has to say. After all he was the one who actually sponsored the particular provision in Article II Section 12.

"In the Philippine Constitution of 1987, conception is defined as fertilization, the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This was the majority decision (32 to 8) of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 convoked by the late President Corazon Aquino. This majority decision was made after the most thorough debate in which some of the most articulate members of the Commission raised their objections, bringing up some of the issues that are now being revived by the population control advocates. "http://www.mb.com.ph/node/293259/conception-ferti…

I agree that the opinion of Fr. Bernas deserves more attention than those of the other commissioners, but that's beside the point. The point is, Fr. Bernas' opinion still does not necessarily represent the consensus of the commission.

As for Dr. Villegas' claim that the majority of the members of the constitutional commission decided that conception is defined as fertilization, that is also beside the point because even if they did decide that, they left to congress the power and mandate to determine when exactly does human life begin.

MR. VILLEGAS: We believe that the abortion debate from a scientific standpoint must proceed on the assumption that this is human life. So, human life begins at fertilization of the ovum.
MR. OPLE: But we would leave to Congress the power, the mandate to determine.
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, on the basis of facts and figures they would obtain from experts.
MR. OPLE: Yes, to legislate a kind of standard so that everyone will know what moment of conception will mean in terms of legal rights and obligations…
* * * * *

So far congress has not yet determined whether life indeed begins at fertilization nor legislated a kind of standard, so as of now no one knows what conception means in terms of legal rights and obligations.

I believe the prior challenge of Mr OPLE was rendered moot and inconsequential.
When the Constitutional Commission finally made that vote, it cemented the intention of the provision.
There are two legal principles which we must bear in mind here. 1) The intent of the law prevails upon
the letter of the law; and 2) Statutes flow from the fundamental law and not vice-versa. Simply said,
the State cannot enact a legislation that goes against the Constitution, especially on a grave matter where the fate of lives hang in the balance. What the provision amounts to is that the unborn is
conferred a presumptive personality (without necessarily according it the full bill of rights), that guarantees it State protection form the moment of fertilization. Again to quote Fr Bernas: "in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” . Please take note again as I emphasize, Fr Bernas is talking comparatively. "Safer" means there are other avenues upon the disposal of the state (and ethical as well) in its mandate to "equally protect the mother and the unborn". It is a no contest.

[I believe the prior challenge of Mr OPLE was rendered moot and inconsequential. When the Constitutional Commission finally made that vote, it cemented the intention of the provision.]

Then what do you make of this:

MR. VILLEGAS: So, human life begins at fertilization of the ovum.
MR. OPLE: But we would leave to Congress the power, the mandate to determine.
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, on the basis of facts and figures they would obtain from experts.
MR. OPLE: Yes, to legislate a kind of standard so that everyone will know what moment of conception will mean in terms of legal rights and obligations..

[The intent of the law prevails upon the letter of the law]

But isn't it the clear intent of the constitutional commission to leave to congress the power and mandate to determine the legal meaning of conception?

[Statutes flow from the fundamental law and not vice-versa. Simply said,
the State cannot enact a legislation that goes against the Constitution, especially on a grave matter where the fate of lives hang in the balance. What the provision amounts to is that the unborn is conferred a presumptive personality (without necessarily according it the full bill of rights), that guarantees it State protection form the moment of fertilization.]

But the fundamental law is vague on the meaning of conception, and congress, who was given the mandate to define it, has not yet done so. I think pro-life should lobby congress to define conception as fertilization instead of stopping the passage of the RH Bill.

[Again to quote Fr Bernas: "in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” . Please take note again as I emphasize, Fr Bernas is talking comparatively. "Safer" means there are other avenues upon the disposal of the state (and ethical as well) in its mandate to "equally protect the mother and the unborn". It is a no contest.]

Like I said earlier, the opinion of Fr. Bernas does not necessarily represent the consensus of the commission. In fact, Fr. Bernas wanted to use the term "fertilized ovum" such that “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum,” but that was not adopted by the commission, ending up with "The State shall protect the unborn from conception" instead. If there was consensus that conception means fertilization, then “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum” would have been printed in our constitution.

Now we are going in circles. I already said that the particular statement of Mr Ople was already rendered inconsequential by the vote on the intention of the provision. As is normally the case in protracted legal debates within a commission (or even within a court council or legislative chamber), a majority vote is sufficient when a consensus cannot be gained. Yes I agree that there was no consensus, but the body was carried by the majority (32-8).

You have good points though. I may not agree but it is only now that I understand why the pro-Rh legislators (might) think the essence of HB 4244 is after all, constitutional.

How about we both try to look for a provision or jurisprudence or something that explains the significance or effect of the 32-8 decision on the definition of conception as fertilization? Because so far I haven't found anything online that validates Villegas' claim about such decision, much less that it effectively defines the legal meaning of conception (especially since the constitutional commission made it clear that they are leaving to congress the power and mandate to define it).

As for constitutionality, the issue here, as I said earlier, is not the RH Bill per se but the classification of certain contraceptives as abortifacient. If the true opposition of the pro-life is really about breakthrough pregnancies and the prevention of implantation of the fertilized ovum, then they should lobby congress to legally define conception as fertilization. Otherwise it would seem that such opposition is just a rationalization (because even if the RH Bill gets blocked, these alleged abortifacients would still be available in the market) and that their true opposition really lies in the distribution of contraceptives (even if certain contraceptives like condoms do not prevent implantation) because contraception is forbidden by Catholic dogma.

I am trying to weigh your statement that "the constitutional commission made it clear that they are leaving to congress the power and mandate to define". After all, your assertion is only based on a single exchange drawn out of the interpellation by Mr Ople of Dr Villegas. I cannot construe that as ample evidence in favor of Mr Ople's statement getting the *consensus* of the body. At any rate, Mr Ople might be emphasizing something which is not so obvious from that exchange alone. However I will agree with your proposal that we look into more evidence on the significance of the 32-8 vote. This should have more weight than Mr Ople's single statement.

I agree for a need to put more teeth into Article II Section 12 via legislation. In fact there are various bills on both chambers addressing the need. Obviously, those bills will be diametrically opposed to the RH bill. One such bill is authored by Cong Golez in the lower House while Senator Enrile filed his version in the Senate. Unfortunately for these initiators, RH Bill gets to the bat first. I warn you to be mindful of the RH bill's repealing clause, which covers regulatory agencies. Once RH bill is passed into law, FDA would give full latitude to abortifacients in accordance to the premise of the RH bill that life would be protected only from the moment of implantation.

I disagree with certain prolife sectors that condoms (or typical barrier mechanisms that contain no drugs at all) should be banned. They are not covered by the prohibition in Article II Sec 12. I agree however with the oppositors when they argue that it is unconscionable to devote public funds for the provision of free contraceptives, in the face of real state priorities. They are free to buy them but do not expect the state to fund them. It is NOT a human right to be given free contraceptives. If that were the case, then the refusal to give away free contraceptives (whatever kind) would constitute a human rights violation! Sound public policy does not permit violations of *authentic* human rights based on appeals to religious or conscientious convictions. For example, we do not admit a defense of religious freedom in cases of racial discrimination. It is an authentic human right that race should not be a barrier. Being entitled to free contraceptives is not. It is NOT the duty of the state to shield its citizens from the consequences of their willful actions. The claim of human rights in the bill is fallacious.

[I am trying to weigh your statement that "the constitutional commission made it clear that they are leaving to congress the power and mandate to define". After all, your assertion is only based on a single exchange drawn out of the interpellation by Mr Ople of Dr Villegas. I cannot construe that as ample evidence in favor of Mr Ople's statement getting the *consensus* of the body.]

I'm not even asserting that such statement got the consensus from the body, but only that Mr. Villegas himself agreed that such definition should be left to congress:

MR. VILLEGAS: So, human life begins at fertilization of the ovum.
MR. OPLE: But we would leave to Congress the power, the mandate to determine.
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly

[I warn you to be mindful of the RH bill's repealing clause, which covers regulatory agencies. Once RH bill is passed into law, FDA would give full latitude to abortifacients in accordance to the premise of the RH bill that life would be protected only from the moment of implantation.]

The repealing clause states that "All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." There is no provision in the RH Bill that identifies which contraceptives are abortifacient and which are not, much less that life would be protected only from the moment of implantation, regardless of the assumptions of the authors of the bill.

[I agree however with the oppositors when they argue that it is unconscionable to devote public funds for the provision of free contraceptives, in the face of real state priorities.]

Okay, I respect your opinion, especially since you're not asserting that it is 'unconstitutional' to devote public funds for the provision of free contraceptives.

[They are free to buy them but do not expect the state to fund them.]

Yup, although they just can't afford them especially since they can't even afford to buy three meals a day and a decent shelter. My argument here is that it would be cheaper for the state to fund contraceptives and information on family planning than to fund the maternal and newborn care spending (through government hospitals) that come with unintended pregnancies.

[It is NOT a human right to be given free contraceptives.]

I totally agree. Giving contraceptives to those who can't afford them is not a must, but an act of compassion and a good use of taxpayers' money (as I said above that it's cheaper for the government to fund RH than to fund maternal and newborn care spending that come with unintended pregnancies, not to mention the additional government spending in public schools for the additional kids, and when these kids get sick, that would be additional cost to government hospitals).

[The repealing clause states that "All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." There is no provision in the RH Bill that identifies which contraceptives are abortifacient and which are not, much less that life would be protected only from the moment of implantation, regardless of the assumptions of the authors of the bill.]

I will only agree with you on this if a provision is specifically inserted to the effect that abortifacients would be categorically disallowed on the premise that life begins at fertilization. Their refusal to do so is a dead giveaway. If you have followed the interpellations on the bill you would not be saying this..

[Yup, although they just can't afford them especially since they can't even afford to buy three meals a day and a decent shelter. My argument here is that it would be cheaper for the state to fund contraceptives and information on family planning than to fund the maternal and newborn care spending (through government hospitals) that come with unintended pregnancies.]

The structures,systems and funding are already in place for maternal and child health. To a certain extent, the provision of free contraceptives too. Why else is the Senate currently investigating the alleged ghost deliveries of 2.6 billion worth of government-funded contraceptives? The RH bill is REDUNDANT and unnecessary and their track record on the provision of free contraceptives does not inspire us, do they. They are asking for 3 billion for the initial implementation of the RH bill. They want us to a blind eye to the fact that about 12.07 billion is already currently allocated to address almost everything that the RH bill intends to address in terms of education, maternal health and child care. Check it out in the DOH GAA for 2011 and see for yourself.http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2011/04… http://www.abante-tonite.com/issue/may1311/news_s…

[I totally agree. Giving contraceptives to those who can't afford them is not a must, but an act of compassion and a good use of taxpayers' money]

Giving artificial contraceptives that have serious side-effects to the women and that have fatal effects as well on the unborn is not my idea of compassion.
Contraceptives are NOT essentials. Instead, the government must undertake an educational and promotional drive on NFP.The practise of NFP costs nothing and does not have any serious health effects. It is a VIABLE alternative. Besides, we pay for contraceptives, we pay for irresponsible indulgence. It is a misplaced compassion. NFP requires discipline and restraint, yes. One has to abstain for at least 7 days in a month. Is that too much to ask? Am i being unreasonable? What do you want to cultivate in our countrymen? What do we want to cultivate in our children?

[I will only agree with you on this if a provision is specifically inserted to the effect that abortifacients would be categorically disallowed on the premise that life begins at fertilization. Their refusal to do so is a dead giveaway. If you have followed the interpellations on the bill you would not be saying this.]

For as long as there isn't a single provision on the bill that identifies which contraceptives are abortifacient and which are not or states that life shall be protected only after implantation, I don't see any concern on the repeal clause as far as abortifacients and the prevention of implantation are concerned.

[The structures,systems and funding are already in place for maternal and child health.]

Interesting. Give me some time to read up on that and I'll see if I can refute it.

[Giving artificial contraceptives that have serious side-effects to the women and that have fatal effects as well on the unborn is not my idea of compassion.]

True. If certain pills do have serious side effects, these should be banned just as pills classified by the FDA as abortifacients should also be banned even if the RH Bill gets passed. But your objection here, to which I agree, is not on the RH Bill per se but on the types of contraceptives to be distributed. To drive my point, condoms don't have side effects, do they? So I don't think this particular objection of yours applies to the distribution of condoms.

[Contraceptives are NOT essentials.]

Tell that to WHO.

[The practise of NFP costs nothing and does not have any serious health effects.]

But it does have side effects – hotheadedness due to lack of sex for several days. Hehe.

[It is a VIABLE alternative. Besides, we pay for contraceptives, we pay for irresponsible indulgence. It is a misplaced compassion.]

Is daily sex without the fear of pregnancy between married couples an irresponsible indulgence? Can you give a secular argument why it is irresponsible?

[NFP requires discipline and restraint, yes. One has to abstain for at least 7 days in a month. Is that too much to ask? Am i being unreasonable?]

Tell that to the poor married couples who have no electricity in their homes and have nothing else to do at night.

[What do you want to cultivate in our countrymen?]

Responsible sex between married couples.

[What do we want to cultivate in our children?]

You're not saying that the RH Bill requires the government to give out contraceptives to children, are you?

[True. If certain pills do have serious side effects, these should be banned just as pills classified by the FDA as abortifacients should also be banned even if the RH Bill gets passed. But your objection here, to which I agree, is not on the RH Bill per se but on the types of contraceptives to be distributed. To drive my point, condoms don't have side effects, do they? So I don't think this particular objection of yours applies to the distribution of condoms.]

Well, well. So it appears we do have something in common about artificial contraceptives. See what a thoughtful and constructive discussion can achieve. Yes, I agree that condoms don't have the side-effects associated with hormonal contraceptives. You are right, man.

I already said condoms should not be banned, but publicly funding them is another thing. The diversity of opinion would be contentious in this particular area.

[Tell that to WHO.]

Does this mean we should tag along to whatever WHO prescribes? I strongly beg to differ. We are in a perfect position to define our own policies that are good
for our country without any pressure from external entities. This should not stop us though from adopting an external influence that we believe could be good for us.
Whether it is WHO or WHAT else should not matter. Let me greet you a belated, happy Independence day.

[But it does have side effects – hotheadedness due to lack of sex for several days. Hehe.]

Nobody ever died of abstention 🙂

[Is daily sex without the fear of pregnancy between married couples an irresponsible indulgence? Can you give a secular argument why it is irresponsible?]

I think no one ever indulges in daily sex, even the most…whatever. Actually, nothing is preventing people to have daily sex if they have the energy for it. It is a private thing. As long as they are personally *responsible* for the resources and its attendant consequences.

The secular definition of responsibility is being answerable or accountable, as for SOMETHING WITHIN ONE'S POWER, control, or management.

For example, I am responsible when I forego alcohol drinking in favor of setting aside food for the table. I am responsible when I control my anger and not maim or kill people when I am mad at them. I am responsible when I honestly work hard for my money and not steal from others (and that goes for government officials too). I am responsible if I control a temporary urge in favor of a larger goal which I value more. Thus, I am responsible when I respect the equilibrium of my wife. I don't deny that I have the means and capability to do so — it is within my power. I am NOT being responsible when I allow my wife to be potentially, seriously harmed by artificial hormones which might wreck her body – even while I am capable of other means which do not harm her. I will NOT gamble with the life of my wife and my unborn through the use of artificial contraceptives. This whole idea of liberating the woman by flooding her with artificial contraceptives is a farce. We are imposing on her poor body when in fact we are actually condoning the irresponsible indulgence of the menfolk. Finally, I am responsible when I buy my own condom and not rely on a third party to subsidize my preference for frequent sex.

[So it appears we do have something in common about artificial contraceptives.]

Maybe, although I'm not so sure about that. It seems you are already 100% convinced that all OCPs have serious side effects. I, on the other hand, am simply saying that if certain OCPs are identified by the medical authorities as having serious side effects, I would want those OCPs banned even if the RH Bill gets passed.

[Does this mean we should tag along to whatever WHO prescribes?]

No, but when you asserted that contraceptives are not essentials, I merely pointed out that WHO disagrees with you, and between WHO and you I believe WHO is the authority as far as essentials are concerned, unless you can cite a more reliable health authority.

As for your last three paragraphs, I don't think they really answered my previous question, "Is daily sex without the fear of pregnancy between married couples an irresponsible indulgence? [By the way, let me add "unintended" before "pregnancy" lest someone accuses me of treating pregnancy as a disease.] Can you give a secular argument why it is irresponsible?" You may have a point about the irresponsibility of giving certain OCPs that could potentially harm a woman's body, but again, that's an issue about banning harmful OCPs and not about contraception per se, which includes the use of condoms.

[Maybe, although I'm not so sure about that. It seems you are already 100% convinced that all OCPs have serious side effects. I, on the other hand, am simply saying that if certain OCPs are identified by the medical authorities as having serious side effects, I would want those OCPs banned even if the RH Bill gets passed.]

All OCPs contain some formulation of synthetic estrogen and progesterone, ALL of which have adverse effects on the uterine lining.
I need not provide you a link since the web is awash with materials explaining so.

[between WHO and you I believe WHO is the authority as far as essentials are concerned, unless you can cite a more reliable health authority.]

And what I am saying is that although WHO may be an authority on many matters, it can not be beyond reproach on ALL the matters that it prescribes. It is not any secret that the major strategy of WHO is to promote "safe abortion". http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsa…
Is safe abortion an "essential" for us too? After all, it was prescribed by WHO as essential.

Our very own Philippine Medical Association however, publicly came out with its official stand that "conception is equal to fertilization". Although the PMA came up with
a qualified support for the RH bill (primarily for maternity/pediatric care and that NO censure or penalty of whatever kind or nature shall be imposed), it made its official qualifications clear when its President Oscar Tinio said “the zygote, pre-embryo or embryo are already considered unique human beings and are therefore entitled to full moral support as that of an adult”. Dr Tinio added that “Medical doctors are major stakeholders and front-liners in the reproductive health and wellness of our nation. As the experts in this field we should be consulted on policies concerning reproductive health,”.

I agree. The PMA is on ground zero so to speak. Between the WHO and the PMA, I would rather consult the PMA. Unless we want to ignore our own experts and thoroughly rely on the WHO and other foreign agencies to dictate upon us.

["Is daily sex without the fear of pregnancy between married couples an irresponsible indulgence?]

The short answer is NO. That is strictly speaking from a secular standpoint.

Take note that my assumption with the "NO" is that the couple having the daily sex should rely on their own pockets to buy contraceptives to support their freely and willfully chosen activity. The rest of the explanation is contained in that prior comment of mine.

[All OCPs contain some formulation of synthetic estrogen and progesterone, ALL of which have adverse effects on the uterine lining.
I need not provide you a link since the web is awash with materials explaining so.]

Others are more qualified to respond to that, but assuming that's true, your objection is still towards the Pill, not the Bill, and it is fallacious to equate the Bill to the Pill.

[Is safe abortion an "essential" for us too? After all, it was prescribed by WHO as essential.]

I checked WHO's list of essentials but I did not find any drug to induce abortion. What I did find was a drug (ergometrine) for the management of incomplete abortion and miscarriage. That's not the same.

[Our very own Philippine Medical Association however, publicly came out with its official stand that "conception is equal to fertilization"…Between the WHO and the PMA, I would rather consult the PMA. Unless we want to ignore our own experts and thoroughly rely on the WHO and other foreign agencies to dictate upon us.]

Irrelevant. It is congress who is given the power and mandate to state the legal definition of conception. Well, congress should definitely hear what the PMA has to say, but until congress comes up with the legal definition, we are not legally bound by PMA's stand that "conception is equal to fertilization."

It is my belief that the core intent of the bill is all about public funding of contraceptives, primarily hormonal-based. There are good provisions in that bill, but as I said before, they are all redundant. You said "Interesting. Give me some time to read up on that and I'll see if I can refute it.". You have not yet done it so far, but I hope you do find the time.

Now we are obviously at loggerheads as to the premise behind Article II Section 12. Any further discussion on this would be fruitless since we stick to our opposing interpretations. I say the 32-8 vote cemented the intent. You say the commission left it to Congress the power to define. Our difference is fair enough. You said earlier that "How about we both try to look for a provision or jurisprudence or something that explains the significance or effect of the 32-8 decision on the definition of conception as fertilization? ". I agreed, yet both of us have not researched further on this crucial point.

So we have two missing ingredients here in our discussion: 1) the redundancy aspect which you said you will read up on; and 2) The significance of the 32-8 vote which needs more substantiation as to its definitive impact on Art II Sec 12.

I will do some more research especially on the 2nd point, but please do your homework on the 1st point. We will resume our discussions when we have more data to substantiate our respective positions. I hope that is fair enough. It was very worthwhile discussing with you and I thank you for that. Let us take a break then. Regards.

[It is my belief that the core intent of the bill is all about public funding of contraceptives, primarily hormonal-based.]

Let me put it this way. The pro-life have succeeded in having BFAD ban Postinor, right? Do you think that if the RH Bill gets passed, Postinor will be back in the market and even distributed for free? I don't think so, and the repeal clause couldn't even change anything about that. So what I'm saying is, the pro-life should focus their efforts in lobbying for the ban of the OCPs they think are harmful and/or abortifacient, not for the stoppage of the RH Bill.

[I will do some more research especially on the 2nd point, but please do your homework on the 1st point. We will resume our discussions when we have more data to substantiate our respective positions. I hope that is fair enough. It was very worthwhile discussing with you and I thank you for that. Let us take a break then. Regards.]

Yes, I'm already starting to gather information on the redundancy aspect. It was indeed very worthwhile discussing with you and I learned very important things particularly about the constitutional commission. Thank you. This is one of the most satisfying and educational discussions I ever had. 🙂

Hi WillyJ. I think I now have an answer to your objection which I said I would read up on.

[The structures,systems and funding are already in place for maternal and child health. To a certain extent, the provision of free contraceptives too… The RH bill is REDUNDANT and unnecessary.]

Assuming all those structures, systems and funding are already in place, they are only in place because there are available funds and the present administration supports them. If the future administrations do not support reproductive health or if there are no extra funds available, all these structures and systems will be wiped out. And this is what the RH Bill seeks to avoid by providing appropriations. That is not redundancy.

Unless she takes a pregnancy test, how would a woman know she is pregnant? She could therefore unknowingly and unintenionally terminate a pregnancy. So, if she is not aware she is pregnant and takes OCP then it would abort her pregnancy, right? Just for the sake of medical basis, could you explain why? thanks

if you ask me; looks like she was trying to scare you into believing.
ask any prolifer how many women died taking the pill since 1960 and billions of women have taken the pill over 50 years. no one can give you a number. just some isolated cases, from malpractice and ods.

i find it funny that most prolife groups believe its a global conspiracy.

Twin_Skies,
I am aware you folks have no love lost for the Vinceton. But before you call him cute names, please cite one objection to at least one of the arguments in that V.P. post I mentioned and let us discuss it here.

so, you really intend to take vincenton seriously? the egotistical little man, who says all UP and Ateneo students who disagree with him are morons and excessive user of Godwin's law and Danth’s Law . nice. you might as well call everyone here nazis, fascists and godless abominations (wait most of these guys are godless, well not abominations)

oh no. I am not in the habit of calling people names. Just want to discuss things and I am not counting out that I might learn a thing or two from you folks. Read all of my comments so far in exchanges with "innerminds". He has some great arguments in there too.

By the way, I am from UP but I don't take offense at Vinceton's insults — that is his problem not mine. Insults aside there are many arguments that I find in common with Vinceton, who is an atheist as you know. Let us discuss issues not personalities. I am actually surprised you folks despise him that much, don't you agree with anything at all of what he says? Really?

Look. I only mentioned the post only in relation to my question/protest to the author: "Why do you typify the oppositors of the bill as 'Catholic clergy' ?only?" I am not exactly enamored with Vinceton either.

But, ok, ok. I relent. If you guys are having hissy fits with Vinceton, I probably made a bad example to bring home the point that it is not "merely religious" nature of opposition. Instead, read the articles of the following then

Antonio Montalvan II
Teddy Locsin Jr

just to name two. They don't use primarily religious arguments. Secular will do. That was what I was pointing here. But mam Prudence did not reply anymore 🙁

"Faith cannot be legislated. Faith is a matter of personal preference. To legislate something that mandates people to act against their faith is abominable to one’s human rights. To use contraceptives is a personal question of preference. If one does not prefer to practice it because it is deemed against one’s faith, we cannot question that. Hence, to prosecute people for not allowing contraceptive use is the greatest coercion. The best way to end this division is not to have a Reproductive Health bill at all.

But these are times we live in when it is common for many Catholics not to agree with the official teachings of the Church. That is why surveys and polls are not the solution. Church teachings are not taught according to popularity. The so-called “sense of the faithful” becomes a sense only if those who avow it are truly faithful to Church teaching. Fidelity to the Church requires holiness. These are old truths that cannot be changed just because many do not agree with it."

Montalvan's argument has its basis in universal, inviolable rights. It is grounded in a secular argument. The universal declaration of human rights says "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…". In addition, it is enshrined in our Constitution as well: "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed". The Constitution simply recognizes an inherent right, and it applies to all religions not only Catholic.

Now Montalvan says "Faith cannot be legislated. Faith is a matter of personal preference. To legislate something that mandates people to act against their faith is abominable to one’s human rights.".

Montalvan emphasizes HUMAN RIGHTS. Mother Dionisia reared Manny on their chosen family values, and the RH bill aims to take away that primary right. And unless you want to make an unfair cherrypick, you have to look into his other numerous articles as well.

How does the RH bill legislate faith, or more precisely, against faith and the freedom to practise it? Let me give two examples. One is the Mandatory Sex Education clause and this rings in Montalvan's example of Pacquiao and his mother. The sponsors claim that an opt-out clause for minor children removes the coercion. That is patently false. May I point out that Mandatory means, well, MANDATORY. All schools, private and public, Catholic or otherwise, are MANDATED to teach the prescribed sex-ed modules. What if the Catholic schools want to teach their own faith-compatible sex-ed modules? No dice. Mandatory means ALL schools must do so under pain of penalty. And how do you exercise the opt-out clause when the RH bill says that the sex-ed modules are INTEGRATED into every subject? The opt-out clause is inconsequential. If that is not legislating against the faith I don't know what is.

Second, the coercive clauses in Section 26. Many of the items under this section do not respect conscientious objection. This is not just a religious objection, for when the state gurantees the freedom to act according to one's conscience, it also guaranteess the freedom NOT to act or refuse to act when this is violative of one's inherent right. Fr Bernas says it well: "The free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. And this freedom is violated when one is compelled to act against one’s belief or is prevented from acting according to one’s belief.". Forcing someone towards material cooperation or complicity is essentially the object of Section 26.
/

Teddy Locsin Jr follows one of his basis for dissecting an older RH bill because he believed it was anti-catholic. ie: he defines it as imperious, overly intrusive, discriminatory, antireligious (specificallyanti-Catholic) http://www.avgweb.com/voxbikol.com/story/dissecti…
these kinds of people also tend to forget celibate men giving married couples rules and regulation on how to have sex is also very intrusive, and imposing it on non-catholics is discriminatory. and not agreeing with them is to be eternally damned is imperious.

so anymore "secular" "analysts" and "experts" you can throw at us? sorry i do not take these experts seriously.i take them just as seriously as you take wolpert.

you are a joke.

just so you know I am not part of FFF. everything i do say are all from the 3rd person point of view.

Many of the things you write here I have already read from somewhere else or heard from my nurse sister, but your article so eloquently relates them that I have to say it opened my eyes as much as it wrenched my heart.

The inhumanity of the anti-RH crowd, and most especially of the doctors among their ranks, astounds and disgusts me. This is, I believe, the danger of believing in imaginary heavens and illusory afterlives — it makes it so easy to excuse extreme cruelty and lack of sympathy. After all, those who suffer such unimaginable pain here can always be rewarded with an eternity of….what? Extreme boredom in the company of those stupid clergy?!

Oh, I'm ranting now. Better channel all of this frustration to another article instead.

Anyways, to sum up what I have expressed in so many words: Great post!

[Father/mother brings up one hand to cover youngster’s eyes until the scene ended. “Don’t look, you’re too young for this!”]

Reminds me so much of my childhood… and playing “house” with the cute next-door kid. I was 5 or 6 maybe. Sloppy kisses on account of curiosity. Nothing as horrible as when I cover my eyes during horror movies.

A year or two later, mom got me this book about growing up–from pre-conception to end of puberty. It contained a lot of information from allergies to zits.

I was about 10 when I asked about a couple of missing pages, she obliged my question by presenting to me the two pages she cut away–a very descriptive and illustrated two pages on the male and female organs, contraceptives, and actual intercourse. My curiosity was kept in check for some seven more years, those two pages burned into my immediate memory.

Now, if I could only remember the title of that book. I’d want my future kid(s) to have one. The “birds and the bees” talk would be plain and simple… and real.